alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021481EN.01002201.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Sipcam Oxon v Commission

(Case T-518/19) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance chlorothalonil - Non-renewal of inclusion in the annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 - Assessment procedure - Rights of the defence - Proposed classification of an active substance - Legal certainty - Proportionality - Precautionary principle)

(2021/C 481/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sipcam Oxon SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, A. Dawes and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/677 of 29 April 2019 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance chlorothalonil, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 114, p. 15).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sipcam Oxon SpA to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sipcam Oxon SpA to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, THE CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,370
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,543
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        930
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,624
<PP&E>                                         208,013
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,007
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 250,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,564
<BONDS>                                        139,702
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           46,481
<PREFERRED>                                     25,935
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (31,570)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,928
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               163,239
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  146,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,483
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,252
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,760
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,492
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,492
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION

906 OF THE SARBAENES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of American Commerce Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year
ended February 28, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to such officers knowledge: Section 13(a)



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of Section 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934: and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In accordance with the Exchange Act, this report has been signed below by the following
persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.



|                       |  |                                                                    |  |              
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -------------
|Signatures             |  | Title                                                              |  | Date         
|                       |  |                                                                   
|/s/ Robert E. Maxwell  |  | Chairman of the Board & Director                                   |  | June 14, 2009
|Robert E. Maxwell      |  |                                                                    |  |              
|                       |  |                                                                   
|/s/ Daniel L. Hefner   |  | Chief Executive Officer, President & Director                      |  | June 14, 2009
|Daniel L. Hefner       |  |                                                                    |  |              
|                       |  |                                                                   
|/s/ Frank D. Puissegur |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director |  | June 14, 2009
|Frank D. Puissegur     |  |                                                                    |
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11.1

                         INTERNATIONAL COMPUTEX, INC.

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Three Months ended Sept 30,    Nine Months ended Sept 30,
                                          1996                  1997       1996            1997
                                        ---------             ---------  ----------- --------------
<S>                                     <C>                   <C>        <C>               <C> 
Pro forma net income                      282,306              243,096      647,212          684,823
 
Weighted average number
 of common and common equivalent
 shares are as follows:
 
 Weighted average common
  shares outstanding                    2,125,000            3,250,000    2,125,000        2,750,000
 
 Shares issued from assumed exercise
  of common stock equivalents (1)         230,245              230,245      230,245          230,245
                                        ---------            ---------    ---------      -----------
 
Weighted average number
 of common and common  equivalent
 shares outstanding                     2,355,245            3,480,245    2,355,245        2,980,245
                                        =========            =========    =========      ===========
 Per share data:
 Net income                               $   .12              $   .07      $   .27          $   .23
                                        =========            =========    =========      ===========
</TABLE> 

(1)  Shares issued from assumed exercise of common stock equivalents include the
     number of incremental shares which would result from applying the treasury
     stock method.
# C_2021242EN.01002201.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Pech v Council

(Case T-252/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Protection of legal advice - First subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Protection of the decision-making process - Refusal to grant full access to a legal opinion of the Council’s Legal Service)

(2021/C 242/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laurent Pech (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer and T. McGrath, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pavlaki and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: O. Simonsson, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, J. Lundberg, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Shev, H. Eklinder and R. Shahsavan Eriksson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Council of 12 February 2019 refusing to grant full access to the opinion of its Legal Service contained in document ST 13593 2018 INIT concerning the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 May 2018 on the protection of the European Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States (COM(2018) 324 final).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 12 February 2019 refusing full access to document ST 13593 2018 INIT, containing the opinion of the Legal Service of the Council concerning the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States (COM(2018) 324 final); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 12 February 2019 refusing full access to document ST 13593 2018 INIT, containing the opinion of the Legal Service of the Council concerning the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States (COM(2018) 324 final);

| 2. | Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Laurent Pech; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Laurent Pech;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
# C_2020378EN.01003002.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Glaxo Group Ltd v EUIPO (Shade of the colour purple)

(Case T-187/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of the colour purple - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 378/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and R. Jacob, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2019 (Case R 1870/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of a shade of the colour purple as an EU trade mark:

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Glaxo Group Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Glaxo Group Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 21, 2020

No. 04-20-00350-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.R.C.,

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-PA-01226

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. Appellant’s courtappointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. We have 

held that in parental-termination appeals, a procedure akin to Anders is necessary to best protect 

the statutory right to counsel on appeal, to provide a procedural mechanism for counsel to fulfill 

her ethical obligations, to assist the court in deciding appeals, and to provide consistent 

procedures for all indigent litigants. In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.); see In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) 

(per curiam) (applying Anders procedures in appeal from order terminating parental rights). 

In compliance with the procedure set out in Anders, appellant’s attorney has shown that 

she sent a letter to appellant, which explained appellant’s right to review the record and file a pro 

se brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re A.L.H., No. 04-18-

00153-CV, 2018 WL 3861695, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 15, 2018, no pet.); In re 

R.R., 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. In the letter to appellant, counsel stated that she had enclosed 

copies of the brief and motion to withdraw. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 313; In re A.L.H., 2018 WL 

3861695, at *2; In re R.R., 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. Counsel’s letter also advised appellant 

that if she wished to review the appellate record, she must file a motion in this court within ten 

days of receiving counsel’s letter. Counsel also enclosed a form motion for this purpose. See 

Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 313; In re A.L.H., 2018 WL 3861695, at *2; In re R.R., 2003 WL 

21157944, at *4.

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that she do so on or before 

September 10, 2020. If appellant files a pro se brief, appellee may file a responsive brief no later 

than twenty days after the date appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. We ORDER the 

motion to withdraw, filed by appellant’s counsel, to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further 

order of the court.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of August, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 723 

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify 

those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals 

and citizens of the United States at birth. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5, 2011 

Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. LEE, and Mr. MORAN) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the 

United States who are nationals and citizens of the 

United States at birth. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Birthright Citizenship 

5 Act of 2011’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 723 IS

1 SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN PERSONS 

2 BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 301 of the Immigration 

4 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before 

6 ‘‘The following’’; 

7 (2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (h) 

8 as paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—Acknowledging the right of birth11 right citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th 

12 amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the 

13 United States shall be considered ‘subject to the jurisdic14 tion’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) 

15 only if the person is born in the United States of parents, 

16 one of whom is— 

17 ‘‘(1) a citizen or national of the United States; 

18 ‘‘(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 

19 residence in the United States whose residence is in 

20 the United States; or 

21 ‘‘(3) an alien performing active service in the 

22 armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, 

23 United States Code).’’. 

24 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub25 section (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:21 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S723.IS S723

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 723 IS

1 ship or nationality status of any person born before the 

2 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Jerry M. Keepers, M.D., Eric Kay-Fung Chan, M.D., and Vista 

Community Medical Center, LLP d/b/a Surgery Specialty Hospitals of 

America v. Michael Smith and Valerie Smith

Appellate case number: 01-20-00463-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-47101

Trial court: 295th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: August 5, 2022

Party filing motion: Appellant

The en banc court has unanimously voted to deny the motion for en banc reconsideration

filed by appellant, Vista Community Medical Center, LLP, doing business as Surgery Specialty 

Hospitals of America. It is ordered that the motion is denied.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Julie Countiss_______

Acting for the En Banc Court*

*En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, Hightower, 

Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.

Date: __August 23, 2022_____
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

SYNIVERSE HOLDINGS, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 2005



|                               |  |                                            
|------------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------
|SUBSIDIARY NAME                |  | STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION
OFINCORPORATION
|                               | 
|Syniverse Technologies, Inc.   |  | Delaware                                   
|                               | 
|Syniverse Technologies, BV     |  | Netherlands                                
|                               | 
|Syniverse Brience, LLC         |  | Delaware                                   
|                               | 
|Syniverse Holdings Limited     |  | United Kingdom                             
|                               | 
|Syniverse Technologies Limited |  | United Kingdom
# cc: Herminio Ramirez-Lopez Attorney General/Carson City

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 

# 2 - 

# v;:a
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DALE McINTYRE, DOC #060221, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3225

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed November 1, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk

County; J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Lara E. Breslow, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa; and

Linsey Sims-Bohnenstiehl, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa (substituted as 

counsel of record), for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
1

 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2463

___________

Lynn Murray, a minor, by * 

Lesa Murray, her mother and * 

natural guardian; Lesa Murray, * 

individually, * 

* 

Appellants, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

United States of America; * 

Department of the Army, * 

* 

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 14, 2004

Filed: August 27, 2004

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, SMITH, Circuit Judge, and DORR,1

 District Judge.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Seventeen-year-old Jessica Ann Baker and fourteen-year-old Lynn Murray

were involved in a tragic single-car automobile accident. Baker, the driver, was en

route to Westbrook-Walnut Grove High School where she and Murray were students.
2

 Murray also has claims pending in Minnesota state court.

3

 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

-2-

On the way, Baker lost control of the car and was killed. Her passenger, Murray, was

severely injured. Murray (and her mother) filed suit against the United States of

America, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).2

 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). In her

suit, Murray alleged that Baker was a member of the Minnesota Army National

Guard's "Delayed Training Program," which allowed Baker to satisfy her training

obligation by attending school "in proper uniform for not less than four (4) hours each

training period." Murray's complaint further alleged that Baker was wearing her

uniform as she drove to school, and–at the moment of the collision–Baker was

engaged in a recruitment conversation with Murray. Additionally, Murray alleged that

Baker was transporting National Guard recruitment brochures in her vehicle on the

day of the accident. Thus, Murray contends that the government is liable for her

injuries under the FTCA.

The district court3

 granted summary judgment in favor of the government and

dismissed the case. Murray appeals the grant of summary judgment and urges that the

district court erred when it determined that she failed to state a claim under the

FTCA. The district court found that Baker was neither a federal employee nor was

she acting within the scope of her federal employment at the time of the accident. We

review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Gen. Trading Int'l, Inc. v. Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc., 320 F.3d 831, 835 (8th Cir. 2003). After our review of the record, we

agree that–at the time of the accident–Baker was not a federal employee. Walsh v.

United States, 31 F.3d 696, 699 (8th Cir. 1994). Consequently, Murray's claim of

negligence under the FTCA cannot stand. St. John v. United States, 240 F.3d 671, 676

(8th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we affirm based on the well-reasoned opinion of the

district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________